FBI Arrests Man in Seizure-Inducing Tweet to Dallas journalist Kurt Eichenwald

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,822
The FBI has arrested a man allegedly responsible for targeting Dallas journalist Kurt Eichenwald with a seizure inducing tweet. As we reported back in December, the Man had previously been sued by Vanity Fair for the attack. The man reportedly faces federal charges, and is also expected to be separately indicted by the Dallas district attorney on different charges.

Hagee said the FBI cannot comment on ongoing investigations, but Eichenwald tweeted that the agency has details of the other cases of strobes and urged those people to "stop sending them."
 

cyclone3d

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
13,697
Dude was doing it intentionally. It'd be one thing to sue for random internet posts, but if you're targeting someone with an illness, that's different.

How would anybody even know that unless the dude said it on-air?

Being in a public forum like that and letting people know stuff like that is just going to backfire on you at some point. Too many crazies out there.
 

gossipninja1

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
120
How would anybody even know that unless the dude said it on-air?

Being in a public forum like that and letting people know stuff like that is just going to backfire on you at some point. Too many crazies out there.

Not taking precautions, especially since you can disable gif autoplay, when you have epilepsy does add a wrinkle here.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
846
Dude was doing it intentionally. It'd be one thing to sue for random internet posts, but if you're targeting someone with an illness, that's different.

I agree; however, how irresponsible is it if you have photosensitive epilepsy, especially if it carries into adulthood which is incredibly rare, you use an app that allows any user to send you images without having restrictions on?

Eichenwald is very vocal of his epilepsy and you would think, again with the rare photosensitve triggers, that he would be more cautious especially considering his past of making questionable / hostile comments.

I do feel for him and his family if he did have an episode but part of me, after watching the interview that resulted in the tweet, believes he might be using it for press. He even continued to tweet immediately after the incident tweet. If I was a doctor and my spouse just had a severe epileptic episode the last thing they would be allowed to do is use an electronic device and the app that caused the episode. Eichenwald's wife is a doctor.

It will be interesting how the courts handle the incident. What will the fed and state charges be?
 

HeadRusch

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
1,346
I think we can all agree: Total Dick Move and some of us will agree, crosses too many lines to let it slide, there's gotta be some deterrent when people take it to this level.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Not taking precautions, especially since you can disable gif autoplay, when you have epilepsy does add a wrinkle here.

It's not only about result, it's about intent.

And how do you know that this man's phone, or is it his company phone, has the ability to disable auto-playing gifs?

The guy is an asshole and I have no problem with him getting reamed as such.
 

Ultima99

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
4,905
The guy is in the wrong for doing this, no doubt, but at the same time the defendant is responsible for minimizing his exposure to harm.

Let's say that Eichenwald is a person that is susceptible to being hurt when hit by a car (like many of us I believe) and he just carelessly wanders into a busy highway with no regard for his own safety knowing full well that if a car plows into him he's in trouble. Most motorist will honk, get angry, and possibly scream WTF at him but will do their best to swerve and avoid hitting him. The perpetrator of seizure inducing tweet would instead be a motorist who sees a person walking in the road and purposely tries to gun him down knowing it will hurt the guy and possibly kill him.

Both should take some blame in this, probably along the lines of 70/30 towards the guy who tweeted the seizure gif.
 

Kaitian

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
4,870
This "incident" happened right after the Carlson interview which where he got his ass handed to him by Carlson. Especially when he has a binder on Carlson. Eichenwald claimed prior to the interview that Trump was abusing meth and didn't provide any proof for that on Carlson.
tucker-kurt.jpg


Also it's the same idiot that sported a catfish picture for some time.
catfish.PNG


https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...7a4a412e93a_story.html?utm_term=.4a37c9ce1cf9
Background on the Eichenwald - Trump / Meth story.

IMO, he is using the twitter user in question to distract from his own fuckup.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,536
I agree; however, how irresponsible is it if you have photosensitive epilepsy, especially if it carries into adulthood which is incredibly rare, you use an app that allows any user to send you images without having restrictions on?
I'm not saying you're wrong or that this guy isn't being a dramatic douche and wasn't affected in the first place, I'm just saying that for the poster, intent is important.

If they can prove that someone knew a guy had epilepsy and tried to trick him to click a link that might induce an attack, that to me is the same as me say knowing that you have a peanut allergy and trying to slip you food with peanuts in it or cooked in peanut oil.
 

Exavior

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
9,699
How would anybody even know that unless the dude said it on-air?

Being in a public forum like that and letting people know stuff like that is just going to backfire on you at some point. Too many crazies out there.

I'm not saying you're wrong or that this guy isn't being a dramatic douche and wasn't affected in the first place, I'm just saying that for the poster, intent is important.

If they can prove that someone knew a guy had epilepsy and tried to trick him to click a link that might induce an attack, that to me is the same as me say knowing that you have a peanut allergy and trying to slip you food with peanuts in it or cooked in peanut oil.

the guy posting knew about it. He posted "you deserve a seizure for your post" and posted the imagine. How the fuck can any of you claim that isn't the intent or that he didn't know what was going to happen?
 

viscountalpha

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
2,549
Nobody wins here. Troll should be prosecuted but have you tried reading a vanity Faire? Thats a crime that it exists!!
 
Last edited:

MoFoQ

Gawd
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
843
Not taking precautions, especially since you can disable gif autoplay, when you have epilepsy does add a wrinkle here.
Or use of "night mode" which reduces the blue or using blue lenses (the Zeiss Z1 comes to mind; Hillary wears them)
 

scojer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
5,133
It's not only about result, it's about intent.

And how do you know that this man's phone, or is it his company phone, has the ability to disable auto-playing gifs?

The guy is an asshole and I have no problem with him getting reamed as such.

It's a Twitter setting not specific to his phone or pc

Screenshot_2017-03-17-19-47-08.png
 

Inglix_the_Mad

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
332
Was the troll being a troll?

Yes.

I don't see how this is criminal. This isn't something that's hard to avoid, and one would think he would actively prevent it because random shiat happens.

What if he stumbled onto:


I better post an epilepsy warning JIC so nobody tries to sue me or have me arrested
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr45
like this

Exavior

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
9,699
Going to somebody's house for any reason and shooting them in the head, stabbing them 47 times with a knife, raping their wife, killing their dog, burning down their house... for any reason is illegal and should be punishable. Doesn't matter about the victim in question, if he is a douche, or anything else doesn't play a part into the actions of the person being charged. Somebody purposely did something to cause the man harm with the full intent to cause the man harm. Of course he is gong to be arrested for assault. They still have to go through a trial and all that, but as of now he did something with the intent to cause bodily harm to somebody. That is illegal, so rightly so charges are being brought against him. I could call everyone in this threat a worthless excuse for a human, that doesn't mean that tonight you can burn my house down with me in it and post video of you doing it online and say that it is fine because I made a post saying that you are a worthless excuse of a human. If you believe me then try it and see how well it plays out for you.
 

Inglix_the_Mad

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
332
Going to somebody's house for any reason and shooting them in the head, stabbing them 47 times with a knife, raping their wife, killing their dog, burning down their house... for any reason is illegal and should be punishable. Doesn't matter about the victim in question, if he is a douche, or anything else doesn't play a part into the actions of the person being charged. Somebody purposely did something to cause the man harm with the full intent to cause the man harm. Of course he is gong to be arrested for assault. They still have to go through a trial and all that, but as of now he did something with the intent to cause bodily harm to somebody. That is illegal, so rightly so charges are being brought against him. I could call everyone in this threat a worthless excuse for a human, that doesn't mean that tonight you can burn my house down with me in it and post video of you doing it online and say that it is fine because I made a post saying that you are a worthless excuse of a human. If you believe me then try it and see how well it plays out for you.

Notice how all of those are physical attacks? Direct, in person, physical attacks either on a person, or property?

How does he (whatever the guy's name is) get through a day if he's so vulnerable? If he's so vulnerable why didn't he take preemptive action to prevent damage from people just making mistakes, not directly trying to attack him but he follows someone who randomly retweets something that could induce a seizure. Or protecting himself from someone, who saw a retweet of something he said responding with some random thing that could induce a seizure in the vulnerable but they don't even think about it because they don't deal with it and know bupkis about him? I can't even imagine how many animated meme pictures could induce a seizure.

I can call him, and your response, idiotic on a scale that's difficult to comprehend as possible for an adult. That doesn't mean I wish you, or even him, harm. I find violence of all types tools of the incompetent. However we've gotten to a new level of stupidity, not preventing exposure to something dangerous to yourself isn't considered your own dumb fault.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,822
Notice how all of those are physical attacks? Direct, in person, physical attacks either on a person, or property?


I'm no legal expert, but I believe what matters legally in this case is that there was an intent to do physical harm, and that attempt was successful.

The law likely does not care if it was done directly in person, or via the Internet.

Similar to if someone used the internet to hack a train control system with the intent of harming passengers by causing an accident.

With my limited level of legal knowledge, I don't think it matters if you put the internet in between or not.

Should the train company have had better security? Certainly! But that probably doesn't change the legal implications from the fact that someone intentionally did another human being harm.

Either way, I'm sure we'll find out when this case goes to court.
 

Elf_Boy

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
2,391
Blaming the victim is low, sad, and pathetic.

This is no different than saying if they didnt want to be robbed they'd have moved to a better neighborhood and gotten an alarm system.

It's ok he got the shit beat out of him, no one likes him anyways.

Is she didnt want to be raped she would not work at night and have to walk down a dark street to get home. Jeeze get a car you loser.

Maybe the guy knows about his settings on the twitter account, maybe he - like millions of other people out there, just uses the thing.

I suppose if someone puts nuts in my food and end up in the hospital with a life threatening anaphylactic reaction it's my fault for eating? I should live on a mountain, grow all my own food and not dare to let anyone or anything within 100 miles of me? Asking people at restaurants "are there nuts in that" is pointless - either they say no (because no one ever told them there are nut in anything here) or they refuse to say it is OK for you to eat anything because that might have been made in the same state they heard other nuts might have been processed and I am not taking responsibility for you -- everything here might have nuts in it. I've gotten that one a lot of places -- including multiple starbucks.

I even have asked the people who made and cooked the cookies - did you put nuts in that? Oh no. And while I am driving off to the emergency room - Oh sorry, I forgot.
 

collegeboy69us

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
5,256
What's next? I can sue someone and get them locked up because something they said to me or around me caused me physical distress? "You offended me and caused me to not feel safe in my own home, I need $2,000,000 now"

Fuck this guy - he's a butthurt troll looking for another payday. I mean, when you sue your own mother for more inheritance, that kind of tells me everything I need to know about the guy.

The thing about people like this, the go through life being a slimy piece of shit instead of a normal every day decent person, eventually they will come across someone that will royally fuck them up, and not care about the consequences.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,294
How would anybody even know that unless the dude said it on-air?

.
Even if he did, how could you expect everyone to know about it?

This is like going into the candy store, taking a candy, then suing the store because you're allergic to candy. And then the store clerk gets arrested.
What a fucking crazy world this has become.
 

Kaitian

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
4,870
Even if he did, how could you expect everyone to know about it?

This is like going into the candy store, taking a candy, then suing the store because you're allergic to candy. And then the store clerk gets arrested.
What a fucking crazy world this has become.
KE was prominent and vocal about being a person with epilepsy. Rivello, aka JewGoldstein, actually researched epilepsy.org and looked at triggers. He even had DM's on his twitter account saying it hopes it works.
Rivello is going to jail and I fucking hate Kurt Eichenwald. KE is one of those scums you don't want to be friends with.

I seriously doubt that his wife typed on his behalf and it was staged by KE himself. The problem was if Rivello had not said those crap or researched, he'd be getting off just fine.

But thanks to both dipshit KE and Rivello, KE practically criminalized sending gif's to anyone even if you don't know that person having epilepsy.
 

haste.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
1,651
A rational person will look at this and say if there was intent it is a crime and should be charged regardless of past political commentary or social behavior. Just because this man doesn't follow your party lines and appears to be one screw short doesn't mean the person that targeted him shouldn't be charged...
This "incident" happened right after the Carlson interview which where he got his ass handed to him by Carlson. Especially when he has a binder on Carlson. Eichenwald claimed prior to the interview that Trump was abusing meth and didn't provide any proof for that on Carlson.
Justifying the crime because of the baseless and unverifiable claim that "Trump is on meth" is a QUITE a bit pot kettle don't you think? Seems to be a few of those coming out of the White House these days. You can't have it both ways...
 

Kaitian

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
4,870
A rational person will look at this and say if there was intent it is a crime and should be charged regardless of past political commentary or social behavior. Just because this man doesn't follow your party lines and appears to be one screw short doesn't mean the person that targeted him shouldn't be charged...

Justifying the crime because of the baseless and unverifiable claim that "Trump is on meth" is a QUITE a bit pot kettle don't you think? Seems to be a few of those coming out of the White House these days. You can't have it both ways...
Did you miss this post by any chance?
https://hardforum.com/threads/fbi-a...list-kurt-eichenwald.1927529/#post-1042887849
 

sfsuphysics

I don't get it
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
14,215
Not taking precautions, especially since you can disable gif autoplay, when you have epilepsy does add a wrinkle here.
Or wearing a tight fitting dress when you're a hot girl, I mean come on she was asking for it! Am I doing it right?

That said, ummmm right. Even if they knew "it could cause seizures", how many people thought/knew that if you throw a penny off the Empire State building (or any tall building) it could kill someone? I mean sure it can't actually do that but how many people still threw coins over the edge!? A ton of potential murderers just because they were curious.
 
Top